Date:Sat, 18 Apr 2020 01:23:34 +0200
From:Joerg Sonnenberger
Message-ID: <20200417232334.ga59...@bec.de>
| I don't understand this argument. I would invert the logic in /bin/sh,
Actually, I just looked at our code again, and I am not currently seeing
any problems w
Date:Sat, 18 Apr 2020 01:23:34 +0200
From:Joerg Sonnenberger
Message-ID: <20200417232334.ga59...@bec.de>
| I don't understand this argument. I would invert the logic in /bin/sh,
| e.g. try to open with O_CREAT|O_EXCL first and only do the open dance if
| it fail
Date:Sat, 18 Apr 2020 01:02:48 +0200
From:Kamil Rytarowski
Message-ID: <007e1cda-6988-7b7a-3125-0f138a951...@gmx.com>
| I just use it to protect from overwriting preexisting files by an
| accident. If O_NOCLOBBER can be useful in the implementation of this
| fe
On Sat, Apr 18, 2020 at 12:01:37AM +0700, Robert Elz wrote:
> Date:Fri, 17 Apr 2020 18:15:01 +0200
> From:Joerg Sonnenberger
> Message-ID: <20200417161501.gb72...@bec.de>
>
> | I'm talking about the difference between this new clobber flag and
> | O_EXCL.
>
> OK.
On 17.04.2020 18:46, Robert Elz wrote:
> Date:Fri, 17 Apr 2020 16:49:40 +0200
> From:Kamil Rytarowski
> Message-ID:
>
> | I use this in ksh and I find this as a useful feature.
>
> If you just mean that you use noclobber mode (set -C) for
> protection (what little
Date:Fri, 17 Apr 2020 18:15:01 +0200
From:Joerg Sonnenberger
Message-ID: <20200417161501.gb72...@bec.de>
| I'm talking about the difference between this new clobber flag and
| O_EXCL.
OK.
| As in: why doesn't the noclobber flag just set O_EXCL and done.
That'
Date:Fri, 17 Apr 2020 16:49:40 +0200
From:Kamil Rytarowski
Message-ID:
| I use this in ksh and I find this as a useful feature.
If you just mean that you use noclobber mode (set -C) for
protection (what little it offers) then that's fine - that's
never going away
On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 02:10:19AM +0700, Robert Elz wrote:
> Date:Thu, 16 Apr 2020 19:27:48 +0200
> From:Joerg Sonnenberger
> Message-ID: <20200416172748.ga86...@bec.de>
>
> | What is the point of this "restriction"? They wanted to make a set flag,
> | but allow
On 16.04.2020 21:10, Robert Elz wrote:
> Date:Thu, 16 Apr 2020 19:27:48 +0200
> From:Joerg Sonnenberger
> Message-ID: <20200416172748.ga86...@bec.de>
>
> | What is the point of this "restriction"? They wanted to make a set flag,
> | but allow people to not have to
Date:Thu, 16 Apr 2020 19:27:48 +0200
From:Joerg Sonnenberger
Message-ID: <20200416172748.ga86...@bec.de>
| What is the point of this "restriction"? They wanted to make a set flag,
| but allow people to not have to use sub shells when also redirecting
| stderr?
On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 07:17:06PM +0700, Robert Elz wrote:
> O_NOCLOBBER|O_CREAT is intended to be the same as O_EXCL|O_CREAT when the
> file named is a regular file, but unlike the O_EXCL variant, succeed if
> the file is a special file (like /dev/ttyN) which exists already.
What is the point of
Oh, and of course, like almost everyone doe smost of the time,
I forgot rump ... there's always rump mods needed!
kre
Date:Thu, 16 Apr 2020 15:48:00 +0200
From:Joerg Sonnenberger
Message-ID: <20200416134800.gc21...@bec.de>
| It strikes me as a lot of complexity for a limited use case.
That argument (almost identically, but with more verbosity) was made
back when the discussions on
On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 07:17:06PM +0700, Robert Elz wrote:
> Its main purpose would be to implement noclobber mode (set -C) in sh
> (and one presumes, the similar thing in csh).
It strikes me as a lot of complexity for a limited use case.
Joerg
PS: I would find something like O_NOATIME to be mu
POSIX are considering this:
O_NOCLOBBER
If O_CREAT and O_NOCLOBBER are set, open() shall fail if the file
exists and is either a regular file or a symbolic link that resolves
to a regular file. The check for the existence and type of the file
and the creation o
15 matches
Mail list logo
